Federal Judge Blocks ATF From Arresting Millions Of Pistol Brace Owners
Millions of Law-Abiding Gun Owners Granted Temporary Relief from Pistol Brace Ban
Millions of law-abiding gun owners who were turned into criminals overnight under the Biden administration’s new pistol brace ban have received temporary relief. This comes after a federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from enforcing the ban.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled on Wednesday that the unelected bureaucrats’ attempts to legislate by regulation instead of enforcing existing gun laws were unlawful. Specifically, the judge stated that the ban on pistol braces must cease immediately.
The ATF’s rule, enacted earlier this year, aimed to penalize and fine the estimated 40 million U.S. pistol brace owners who refused to reclassify their weapons as short barrel rifles. This reclassification requires registration with the government and a $200 tax stamp, or the destruction of the pistol brace. Gun owners in the 21 states with SBR bans were faced with the difficult choice of surrendering their weapons or destroying their pistol brace-equipped firearms to avoid punishment.
The plaintiffs in Britto v. ATF, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), argued that the rule violates the Second Amendment and should be rendered “void for vagueness.”
Judge Kacsmaryk agreed, emphasizing that the rule would not only burden gun owners but also pistol brace manufacturers financially. He noted that certain manufacturers risked permanent closure due to the rule’s impact on their sales.
While sympathetic to the ATF’s concerns over public safety, Judge Kacsmaryk concluded that the rule was not a lawful way to address those concerns.
This ruling marks another blow to the ATF, as previous judges have also criticized the agency’s rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined in August that the rule would “likely fail constitutional muster.” However, Judge Kacsmaryk is the first to apply his injunction to all pistol brace owners, not just the plaintiffs.
“This new federal ruling protects the 2nd Amendment Rights of millions of Americans. WILL is proud to work alongside our clients and blaze a trail against this unconstitutional federal action,” said WILL Deputy Counsel Dan Lennington in a statement.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Why did the judge in the Britto v. ATF case state that such a significant policy change should be made by Congress, not by unelected officials?
At the ATF’s pistol brace ban violated both the Second Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit challenged the ATF’s authority to unilaterally change the legal classification of pistol braces without going through the proper legislative process. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that such a significant policy change should be made by Congress, not by unelected officials.
This ruling brings temporary relief to the millions of law-abiding gun owners who found themselves on the wrong side of the law due to the pistol brace ban. These owners, many of whom had legally purchased and used pistol braces for years, suddenly faced the prospect of becoming criminals overnight if they didn’t comply with the ATF’s new regulations. The ban required them to either register their weapons as short barrel rifles or destroy the pistol braces, both of which would impose burdensome costs and restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
The injunction issued by Judge Kacsmaryk prevents the ATF from enforcing the ban while the case proceeds in court. This means that gun owners can continue to use their pistol braces without fear of legal consequences, at least for now. The judge’s ruling sends a clear message that the ATF’s attempt to regulate firearm accessories through administrative action is not only unlawful but also infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
The issue of pistol braces is just one example of the ongoing debate over gun control and the balance between individual rights and public safety. While it is essential to ensure that firearms are used responsibly and that laws are in place to prevent their misuse, it is equally important to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and avoid overreach by unelected officials.
The implications of this ruling go beyond the specific issue of pistol braces. It highlights the importance of the rule of law and the proper separation of powers. Legislative decisions should be made by elected representatives accountable to the people, not by executive agencies acting unilaterally. This case serves as a reminder that the courts play a crucial role in checking the power of the executive branch and upholding the Constitution.
As the Britto v. ATF case moves forward, it will undoubtedly attract attention from both gun rights advocates and advocates for stricter gun control. Ultimately, the court’s decision will shape the future of firearm regulations and have significant implications for millions of gun owners across the country. For now, at least, those owners can take solace in the fact that their constitutional rights have been upheld by a federal judge.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...